Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 19 Sep 1944

Vol. 94 No. 9

Committee on Finance. - Transport (No. 2) Bill, 1944—Committee Stage.

Section I agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Mr. Norton

I move amendment No. 1:—

In line 23, after the word "Eireann" to insert the words "or in the English language, The National Transport Company".

The purpose of this amendment is to have the English translation of the Irish title of the company inserted in the Bill. I have no very strong feelings in the matter, but if the company is to be called by its English name, it ought to be called by the correct English name, whatever it may be. In the Constitution, we have called this country Ireland and Eire, the English and Irish versions being accepted. In the case of the National Health Insurance Society, the Irish title only is used in the relevant legislation, with the result that persons using the English description of the society call it the unified society. Of course, it is not the unified society at all. It was originally colloquially described as the unified society, but the correct name is the National Health Insurance Society.

If persons are likely to use the English title of the proposed Córas Iompar Eireann, it is desirable that they should use the correct English title, and the object of the amendment is to ensure that the English title will be correctly stated as the National Transport Company. It is not a matter on which I have any feelings one way or the other. If people call the organisation Córas Iompar Eireann and use only that title, no difficulty arises, but if persons resort to calling it by its English title, as people describe this country by its English title, they ought to have the correct English title to use.

Mr. Lemass

This is not so much an issue of transport policy as of general Government policy, and the desirability of having the English version of this organisation was considered by the Government and the decision was against it. I see no reason why a comparatively simple name like Córas Iompar Eireann should not come into common use just as the title of our air company, Aer Lingus, is in common use. The illustration given by the Deputy is rather unfortunate. I think the name of the National Health Insurance Society is a particularly difficult one to pronounce for people who are not Irish speakers. I was concerned to secure that we would get for this company an Irish title which would be easy to pronounce, and particularly a title the correct pronunciation of which would not be difficult for persons who are familiar only with English sounds. I could not agree to the proposal that we should insert the English title in the Bill, and I think that, in the course of time, the term Córas Iompair Eireann, or the initials of these three words, will come into common use to describe this transport organisation.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 2:

To delete lines 24 and 25.

This is only a drafting amendment, the purpose of which is to put the definitions in their proper alphabetical order.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 3:—

Before line 34 to insert the following—

the expression "the Dublin Corporation" means the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of Dublin;

the expression "the establishment date" means the 1st day of January, 1945;

the expression "functional area" means—

(a) in relation to the council of a county, that county (excluding any borough or urban district therein),

(b) in relation to the corporation of a county or other borough, that county or other borough,

(c) in relation to the council of an urban district, that urban district;

the expression "local authority" means any authority being—

(a) the council of a county, or

(b) the corporation of a county or other borough, or

(c) the council of an urban district.

This also is a drafting amendment. As the Bill was originally framed, there was only one reference to the Dublin Corporation in it, and that body could be described in the section. I am proposing certain amendments which will involve the mentioning more than once of the Dublin Corporation, and consequently it is desirable to have in the definition section a description of the Dublin Corporation and of its functional area.

Mr. McGilligan

Would that title cover any change in the position?

Mr. Lemass

No, it is a purely drafting amendment.

Mr. McGilligan

What I mean is, will "Dublin Corporation" cover any successor to the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses? Suppose there were commissioners again in Dublin?

Mr. Lemass

It will cover that.

Mr. McGilligan

Are you sure?

Mr. Lemass

Quite sure.

Mr. McGilligan

It does not say "and their successors".

Mr. Lemass

It is not necessary to provide for that in this Bill. It is provided for in the relevant local government enactments.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 3.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 4:—

Before Section 3 to insert the following new section:—

An offence under any section of this Act may be prosecuted by the Minister.

I think it desirable that the Minister for Industry and Commerce should have power to prosecute for offences under the Act. The giving of that power to the Minister in no way relieves the Gárda Síochána of the obligation to enforce the law, or aggrieved persons of the need for protecting their own interests. The insertion of the section giving power to the Minister is merely a precaution against exceptional circumstances.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Norton

I move amendment No. 5:—

To add the following new sub-section:—

(2) Every regulation made under this section shall be forthwith laid before each House of the Oireachtas and if either House shall within twenty-one days on which such House has sat next after the regulation is laid before it pass a resolution annulling the regulation the regulation shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.

This amendment seeks to ensure that every regulation made under the regulations section of the Bill will be laid before the House, so that the House may have an opportunity of considering it, and, if it thinks fit, of annulling the regulation, without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under it. I assume that the Minister will not offer any objection to the acceptance of the amendment because it is a very well defined practice in our legislation to provide that regulations made by the Minister will be tabled in the House, so that the House may have an opportunity of expressing an opinion, if it so desires.

It seems to me that the Minister may make regulations under Section 25 which is an important section from the point of view of making available to the House information which the House may desire. He may also make regulations under Sections 87, 89 and 92. There is no serious impediment imposed on the Minister's efficient control of the proposed transport company by requiring him to lay these regulations on the Table of the House, so as to provide the Dáil with an opportunity of discussing them. Even if the regulations are repealed or in any way amended, from the Minister's point of view, it does not invalidate anything previously done under them. This is a well-known practice in our legislation, where Ministers have power to make regulations. I hope the Minister will see his way to accept the amendment.

Mr. Lemass

I think the Deputy misunderstands the nature of the regulations to which this refers. The Deputy remarked that it is a well-known practice to have a provision of this kind. I should say it is not the practice—that the practice is quite the reverse. There are certain matters to be prescribed here and the regulations referred to in this section are regulations made in relation to any matter referred to in the Act as "prescribed". These relate to purely administrative matters, such as the form in which an application will be made and the particulars which must be furnished in any application. These are purely administrative matters and the regulations are different entirely from the type of regulation which is sometimes necessary under legislation to give effect to a definite policy, or to avoid the inclusion in the Bill of a great number of detailed sections. The various things that are to be prescribed in Sections 70, 71, 74, 80, 85, 87 and 92 concerns only form; for instance, a person may apply for an alteration of the railway charges, or charges connected with the carriage of merchandise, and certain particulars will have to be set out in his application.

Section 25 is the only section where the power to make regulations may be of importance. We can discuss that aspect when we come to deal with the section. Under the existing law governing the presentation of accounts, statistics and returns by railway companies, the manner in which they are to be prepared is prescribed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. In fact, Section 25 makes no change in the existing law and it would be undesirable to establish as a precedent that administrative matters, such as the form and the making of applications, should be subject to regulations of the type envisaged. It would be contrary to the practice not merely in transport legislation in the past, but to all legislation in the past.

Mr. Norton

Section 25 is the most important of all the sections in respect of which the Minister has power to make regulations. It is a very important section from the point of view of the House and of the community generally.

Mr. Lemass

I should like to point out that there is no change made in the existing law by Section 25.

Mr. Norton

There is an important point involved with regard to public responsibility for the railways in the future. Under this Bill we will underwrite £16,000,000 of capital. This company may never make a profit. It is quite possible that it may lose money. From the point of view of the debenture stockholders it does not matter what the railways may lose, because this House will guarantee them the interest on their stock. If the public are to be put in the position of having to guarantee the stock, the highly appreciated stock of this company, I suggest it is not unreasonable that the public should get full information as to the accounts, statistics and returns which the company are required to produce to the Minister. Under Section 25 it is provided that "The accounts with respect to its railway undertaking to be rendered by the company under the Railway Companies (Accounts and Returns) Act, 1911, shall be compiled in such manner as may be prescribed by the Minister after consultation with the company." This company is the Minister's baby. This may be a very difficult and unprofitable baby so far as the public are concerned. It may need considerable financial attention and we want to make sure that if the Minister is to require the company to produce accounts, statistics and returns, the company will produce them in a manner which will satisfy every reasonable public requirement.

I consider it is unreasonable for the Minister to resist the suggestion that whatever regulations he makes under Section 25 should be tabled in the House, so that the House and the public may have some assurance that the company will be required to produce the maximum amount of information for the knowledge of the House and the community generally. If the Minister says he intends to do that, then merely tying himself down to table the regulations means little. On the other hand, by being tied down to table the regulations the Minister gives the House and the community an assurance that he is willing to leave open to examination the question of whether he has or has not required the company to produce the maximum information possible. I think the Minister will hardly contend that in a matter relating to the accounts, statistics and returns to be provided by the company, it is unfair to ask him to table whatever regulations he proposes to make. If the regulations are all right from the point of view of any reasonable person, it will make no difference to the Minister; but if they are not, then I suggest there is a good case for asking the Minister to table them.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy is proposing to delete sub-section (1) of Section 25. I am anxious to hear him reconcile that proposal with the present one.

Mr. McGilligan

In connection with the sections dealing with railway rates and charges and the classification of merchandise, the Minister is empowered by order to do certain things. How are those orders to be made? Are they to be subject to any publicity? In Part IV there are certain matters which have an important bearing on the actual operation of the railways. It is the most important part of the Bill, because it throws into the hands of the Minister what used to be in the hands of some sort of judicial authority. Whatever the Minister is to do there is to be done by Order.

That part of the Bill brings in the Eighth Schedule, and there you have certain matters to be prescribed. There is one at least which cannot be regarded as the formal type of matter to which the Minister refers, where the charge is to be made by weight, or measure, and the Minister is to prescribe the method by which these charges are to be calculated. That might make a very definite change in the system of railway charges. If that is to be done by regulation, which regulation is not to come before the House an important point is involved.

So far as my reading of Part IV goes, the Minister will not operate by regulation; in the main he will operate by something called an Order and that Order will take effect at once and will not be open to any criticism through publicity here, or any possibility of change. In other words, the whole organisation of the railways hereafter is thrown on to a Government Department and is removed from the light of scrutiny by the Dáil. That is the scheme the Minister has in mind. There are certain matters to be done by Order, and they are not caught by this phrase with regard to regulations. There is probably going to be no publicity with regard to it at all. There will be publicity of course when the railway begins to operate the charges, but as to arrangements beforehand, or any negotiations about them, or the bringing to bear of public opinion upon them, all that is being discarded as far as this measure is concerned.

Mr. Lemass

I think that is a misrepresentation of the position. The Railway Tribunal was established under the 1924 Act to discharge certain functions. It is proposed to abolish the Railway Tribunal. Some of the functions previously discharged by the Railway Tribunal will in future be discharged by the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Mr. McGilligan

Most of them.

Mr. Lemass

Some of them.

Mr. McGilligan

The most important ones.

Mr. Lemass

There is provision for consultation with the advisory committee, which means giving full publicity to proposed changes in regulations. It means giving an ample opportunity to persons opposed to the change to submit their views to the committee; then the committee gives its recommendation and the Minister acts. That is part of the scheme in the Bill.

Mr. McGilligan

Is not the reference to the advisory committee a vague one?

Mr. Lemass

As I explained to the House, in 90 cases out of 100 the matters which arose under the 1924 Act were settled between the Department of Industry and Commerce and the railway company without reference to the tribunal, because in practice the people found it far too expensive to go to the Railway Tribunal to get those changes made. There will be many such minor changes which, in fact, will not need to be submitted formally to the advisory committee. It is to simplify and cheapen the procedure which was established in regard to those matters under the 1924 Act that the change is proposed, but that is an entirely different matter from what Deputy Norton was aiming at here. Deputy Norton has dealt with the section which provides that, where the Minister may prescribe certain things, he shall do so by regulations. The Deputy wants to bring the Dáil in, and give them power to annul the regulations. They will not relate to any of the matters to which Deputy McGilligan was referring. They will relate only to the form in which the application must be made. They will relate to the information that must be given in support of the application— purely administrative matters which have no legislative importance. As far as Section 25 is concerned, I have said here that the provision in this Bill is similar to that in the 1911 Act, under which the existing accounts of the railway company are made in the form prescribed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. There is no question of the Legislature having power to interfere with the form prescribed by the Minister. The intention of this section is to secure that there will be ample information in a suitable form made available to the public through the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

I will resist this amendment because I think it is undesirable that we should bring the Dáil into those purely administrative arrangements. There will be no question of principle involved, and there is certainly nothing which could lead to discussion here upon matters of policy. In so far as policy arises, it may be properly stated that the matters to which Deputy McGilligan referred would be concerned, but in that particular case I am going to oppose on principle the initiation of debates in the Dáil upon decisions of that kind. It is for the machinery set up under this Bill to determine whether a particular trader is to get a special rate, or whether conditions of carriage are to be altered in a particular instance, and I certainly would not contemplate that we should have Dáil debates on those matters after a decision is arrived at.

Mr. Norton

The Minister said that I was proposing to delete sub-section (1) of Section 25, but in making that statement he did not advert at all to amendment No. 43. I can only assume, therefore, that the Minister is very anxious to misrepresent my position in regard to the whole matter. If the Minister looks at amendments Nos. 42 and 43, he will see what my purpose is. First, there is an effort to get a debate on Section 25 by moving the deletion of sub-section (1). If that is carried, something will have to go in instead, but the Minister will have to think in the meantime on the arguments advanced in the House. If amendment No. 43 stands, which would put the Minister in the position that whatever information was to be compiled by the railway company would be prescribed by the Minister after consultation with the company and with the Transport Advisory Committee which is set up under the Bill. There an effort was made to bring in somebody, a third party, other than the Minister and other than the railway company, so as to ensure that at least somebody not as closely associated with the company as the Minister is, somebody not as closely associated with the Minister as the company is, would have some say in the type of accounts, statistics and terms to be provided by the railway company.

Mr. Lemass

Sub-section (1) relates to the accounts with respect to its railway undertaking, which the company must render under the Act of 1911.

Mr. Norton

The Minister apparently cannot think of any later argument than a 1911 argument to justify his resistance to this amendment.

Mr. Lemass

I am trying to point out to the Deputy that the obligation to present these accounts already exists. The company has that obligation under that Act. We are not giving it a new obligation. The only question which arises there is whether the Minister should have power to prescribe the form in which it will render those accounts. The Minister has that power now.

Mr. Norton

Because the public are guarantors for the amount of capital which will be raised by this company, which may be a defaulting company for its whole life, the public through this House are entitled to see whether the Minister has required the company to provide the prescribed information in an adequate form.

Mr. Lemass

It is adequately provided for and full provision is made for the publication of the information——

Mr. Norton

My point is that we want to make sure that the Minister requires the company to provide a sufficiency of information. That is simply the purpose of this amendment. If the House feels that the Minister has required the company to provide inadequate information, then the Minister cannot, unless his punctilio transcends everything else, seriously object to the matter being debated in the House, and the point of view of those who dissent from the Minister's prescribed form of information ventilated in the House.

Mr. Lemass

I suggest to the Deputy that if he wants to raise a particular question on Section 25 he should raise it on that section, but that this power to make regulations in relation to matters to be prescribed applies in regard to a large number of purely trivial matters, which could not be of interest to the Dáil.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the amendment withdrawn?

Mr. Norton

I will withdraw the amendment subject to my right to put it in again to the present section and in another form to Section 25. I take it that, in the meantime, the Minister will look into the applicability of the amendment in relation to Section 25?

Mr. Lemass

I intend to deal with the Deputy's point under Section 25.

Mr. Davin

Would it be fair to ask the Minister at this stage to say what he proposes to do with amendment No. 43?

Mr. Lemass

I think we had better wait until we get to the section. I do not think that is the proper function of the Transport Advisory Committee.

Mr. Davin

The Minister, in his remarks, would like to make it appear that this is a very simple matter, and not worthy of the time which has been devoted to drafting the amendment. Does not the Minister know perfectly well that those who want to follow the financial history of this new company after it comes into operation——

Mr. Lemass

Might I interrupt the Deputy? I think what I said was that it was a trivial matter, except perhaps in relation to Section 25.

Mr. Davin

The Minister put his finger on the point which this group had in mind in drafting this amendment. We did it with the knowledge that the majority of the members of this House decided, rightly or wrongly —in my opinion, wrongly—to pass over the whole of the administration of this organisation to a chairman-dictator, who would only have the obligation to consult with the Minister on certain matters from time to time. If Deputies of this House in the future, after the establishment of this organisation, want to find out for themselves and for those whom they represent how this company is going on, they can only do so, unless they are financial experts, by studying the accounts which the Minister will oblige the new company to furnish to those who are entitled to receive them. Is not that so?

Mr. Lemass

I suggest that the Deputy is making now the speech he intends to make on Section 25.

Mr. Davin

The Minister knows that the able accountants who will be available to tender advice to the board of the new company, whether the board is composed of one or seven, have a very happy knack of presenting accounts in a form which the ordinary layman cannot understand. I would say that that applies very largely to the present form in which the accounts are presented. I have a suspicion that there is a tendency right through the Bill to hand the whole show over to Civil Service administration. Rules and regulations may be made, but those of us who have experience in this House know perfectly well that the regulations are red-tape regulations drafted by the heads of the Civil Service and signed by the Minister. We know that from the sad experience we have had, in spite of promises to the contrary. We know how the Emergency Powers Act has been abused in that respect, and I do not want, at this stage in the history of this so-called democratic Parliament, to hand any more powers of that kind over to the heads of the Civil Service, and deprive the representatives of the people from getting accounts and returns rendered in a form which the ordinary layman can understand.

We are prepared to withdraw the amendment, as Deputy Norton has indicated, if we can get an assurance from the Minister that he will even consult the Transport Advisory Committee before making those regulations. They would be acknowledged as being capable of speaking on behalf of the community as a whole, and of the different sections of the community. The Minister, of course, has taken care that he will not say what he is going to do in regard to that. This is a much more serious matter than most people can see at the moment. I want to ensure that, after this Parliament has decided to hand over such drastic powers to one man or seven men, the taxpayers who are incurring a prospective liability under the financial provisions of this Bill will get all the information they require from their accredited representatives in this House.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 4, 5 and 6 agreed.

SECTION 7.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 6:—

In sub-section (1), (a), page 9, line 2, to delete the figures "85" and substitute the figures "39, 85, 91".

This amendment is intended to rectify a mistake in drafting. The Bill as drafted provides that the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act, except certain sections, will be incorporated with and form part of this Bill. Sections 39 and 91 were not excepted. Section 39 of the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act provides power for re-borrowing in respect of mortgages or bonds paid off, and would be inconsistent with Section 15 of the Bill. Section 91 of the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act deals with matters normally left wholly to general meetings of the company, such as the choice and removal of directors and auditors, and remuneration, for which specific provision is made in various sections of the Bill. The omission of those two sections from the numbers of the sections excepted was an oversight in drafting.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 8.

The following amendment appeared on the Order Paper:—

To delete lines 23 to 26 and substitute therefor the words: "A company shall be and is".—(Deputy Mulcahy.)

General Mulcahy

I am advised by the Ceann Comhairle that I cannot move this amendment. I put it down for this reason: This section proposes that a company will be formed which will be owned by the owners of the common stock of the railway. Apparently the idea which was in the Minister's mind up to September, 1943——

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy is getting in a speech on this amendment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is out of order.

General Mulcahy

I should like the House to understand what is being ruled out of order.

Mr. McGilligan

Is there a ruling that this amendment is out of order?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. McGilligan

Was a ground stated for the ruling?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It was ruled out of order on the grounds that it involves nationalisation, and goes outside the principle of the Bill. The Deputy wanted a certain element to be omitted.

Mr. McGilligan

The deletion of that phrase would mean nationalisation? That is something new.

Mr. Davin

Is it seriously suggested that that is nationalisation?

General Mulcahy

I am prepared to admit the charge that the putting down of this amendment by me—suggesting that the owner should not be the person provided for in the Bill and that the money be provided by the only people who apparently would provide this money—by the Government—would, in fact, be proposing nationalisation.

Mr. Lemass

But it would also impose a charge on public funds.

General Mulcahy

It would be worth while spending such money, as it would save the country a lot.

Mr. Lemass

That is a matter of opinion, not a matter of order.

Mr. McGilligan

Has it been decided that to accept this amendment would impose a charge on public funds?

General Mulcahy

It has not.

Mr. McGilligan

Is that one of the grounds for ruling it out of order?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I think it hangs together with some other amendment which would bring in such a charge.

General Mulcahy

Obviously, as it cannot do so by itself.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The amendment is out of order and cannot be moved, so there can be no discussion upon it.

Mr. McGilligan

Is there any ruling given as to why the amendment is out of order?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I believe a reason has been given to the Deputy and that he is satisfied it is correct.

Mr. McGilligan

That is the one you announced—that it was intended to mean nationalisation of transport services. A secondary one has been suggested: is that also part of the reason for ruling it out of order?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I think it would be better to let that amendment alone. It is obviously out of order.

An Ceann Comhairle took the Chair.

General Mulcahy

Are we clear that amendment No. 7 is out of order, that amendment No. 8 does not arise, and that we are now about to deal with the section?

Mr. McGilligan

Before we consider the section, is there any reason given for the ruling that this amendment is out of order? Could we have the grounds recorded?

An Ceann Comhairle

No. 7, as far as I recollect, is connected with proposals for nationalisation of transport.

Mr. McGilligan

Is that the only ground?

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes, and the Deputy was so informed by me.

Mr. McGilligan

The suggestion has been made here that it would impose a charge on public funds.

An Ceann Comhairle

It hangs with Nos. 17 and 21.

Mr. Davin

It is a libel on the Bill to say it would be nationalisation.

General Mulcahy

It is a libel on amendment No. 17 to say it would impose a charge on public funds.

Mr. McGilligan

I would like to find that out.

Progress reported; Committee to resume at 7 p.m.